NIH Draft Consensus Statement on Family History

The NIH conference on Family History came and went.

What were we left with?

A Consensus Statement.

What is the crux of it?

"The panel recognized that family history has an important role in the practice of medicine and may motivate positive lifestyle changes, enhance individual empowerment, and influence clinical interventions. The panel found that it is unclear how this information can be effectively gathered and used in the primary care setting for common diseases."


Well ladies and gentlemen. I can give you all sorts of anecdotal evidence. That being said, we are evidence driven creatures, so I suggest you give me a call and we set up studies in Primary Care practices with different family history tools.

Things such as the "SCREEN" screen versus a detailed 3 generation pedigree versus 1st generation.

It is pretty easy and inexpensive to set these studies up if you use current technologies.

What else did the panel say?

"For a systematically collected family history for common diseases to become an evidence-based tool in primary care clinical settings, substantial additional research will be needed."

I agree, it is time we develop these tools as multifactorial shotguns which hit lots of targets. This IS what DTC is arguing that there puny little scans do. Without evidence Family History champions like myself run the risk of sounding like the marketing hacks out in Silicon Valley and PR firms like NYC.

That being said there are some evidence tools where Family History helps clinical classification. I think specifically of the Reynolds Risk and how it beat the Framingham

We should attack this one precisely the same way. Start by each individual risk calculator ADD family history and see what it does.

Then do a cohort study of practices which routinely perform 3 generation pedigrees and see how the incidence of diseases like diabetes, HTN and MI shake out.

That could be done over 5-10 years. Not a long wait to get some great evidence, if you ask me.

The Sherpa Says: The evidence may be weak for Family History as a Poly-Tool. But as a clinical marker in certain diseases it is ESSENTIAL.

Where from here?

This is the question I am asked so often.

1. We have the steady progress towards cheap genomes.
2. We have the biggest supporter of personalized medicine running the NIH
3. We have "some" clinical awareness of personalized medicine
4. We have the government aware of the shenanigans of some unscrupulous DTC advertising, etc
5. We have several milemarkers under our belts with genome science..... We are moving in the "right" direction, but where do we go from here

There are several areas we need to investigate. I would like to sum a few of them, both basic science and clinical. Basic Science first.

1. We need to understand precisely how gene regulation occurs in the face of certain common environmental exposures. Trans Fat, Tobacco Smoke, Alcohol, Stress. Is it RNA? Is it Methylation? What precisely is it? Maybe it is all of them and more. But the quicker we understand that, the quicker we can look for signs of these ill effects.....and stop them molecularly

2. We need a good CNV/Indel etc database. Toronto sure, I have heard that. But seriously. We need this and we need it now. Give me Normals, Give me abnormals, Give me phenotypes......This is a very key missing piece of the puzzle which neds to be completed in the next 2 years

3. Junk DNA investigation. This will come once we have a database like the one in Iceland......I am certain this will come. I think that next to nuclear fission, the investigation into the "junk dna" will prove to be one of the most fruitful works of governmental science. Yes, you can quote me on that one.

4. Systems biology. This is one of those areas where we will eventually realize the Greeks were right with phlegmatic systems vs bilious systems.......

Now onto the top 3 Clinical Science targets

1. A complete revamping of the current risk stratification system. What do I mean? We need to develop a process for efficiently introducing genotypic risks into current clinical risk stratification. We need to evaluate the with and without and change in AUC......
1b. We need to evaluate the role of integrating family history in some risk stratification models. I know Dr. Khoury/Scheuner et.al are working on these things, but it sure would be nice to have odds ratios and RRs/HRs for adverse drug outcomes, common autoimmune disease risks, COPD, Alcoholism, Suicide, etc. types based on fam hx integrated with current models.

2. Pharmacogenomics......end of story, we need more science here for more drugs. There is not nearly enough clinical study weight on outcomes. I understand why from the Pharma end, but the US government cannot ignore its utility, especially with the pain they feel from Medicare part D
This area has tremendous promise, but has not seen the will from genetics departments, mine looked at my cross eyed when I wanted to do a PGx study. There has to be a will in basic medical science departments like pharmacology and cell biology to understand the processes and polymorphism which really screw up a drug's effect.....or really enhance it. And there has to be a will in clinical departments to study the outcomes with different therapies based on genes.....

3. I want to know what behavioral outcomes are likely with knowledge of one's family history risk versus genome scan risk vs both together vs with no knowledge.

These are some low hanging fruit that could get accomplished and probably already are........

The Sherpa Says: These are not stretch targets, these are do-able things in the next 5 years or so. If we can accomplish most of these, we will be well on our way to evidence based personalized medicine, which is where we need to be........

Family History, State of the Science

The NIH/CDC is hosting a conference next week. I conference I wish I could go to, but alas, I will be DOING family histories on my patients that week.

The conference will be held at the NIH in Bethesda. This is an NIH state of the science conference about Family History and its usefulness.

I for one, am very glad that the government is trying to address this super important issue. It is beyond due for an evaluation.

Why?

With the cost of a genome going to drop to 5000 USD by the late fall (trust me), we will soon see another level of DTC and Clinical lab set offering the genome as a predictive tool.

There are several reasons that Family History beats a Genome (For Now)
1. Phenotypic data of family history represents complex interplay of genes and environment

There is no way that a simple genome will be able to give us the story of how a human will develop. That is predicted by environment and genes, which are successfully covered by..... A family history.

2. 5000 USD is still more than what it costs to obtain a family history.

By the time the software tools are released, we will see that social networking and the internet will transform the costs of family history next to nothing. Which is still a long way to go for the genome scans.

3. We have no clue what most of the genome data means.

Indels or CNVs or SNPs, we have no freaking clue what most mean, we do know what a heart attack at 40 means.......

4. Even if we had everyone's genome scans, we would still need phenotypic data and pedigrees.

What's the one thing we do when we have an intellectually delayed child with an abnormal CMA/CGH? We test the parents. Looking for THEIR phenotypes to make sense of the genome mess.

Look, people always give me reasons why the genome is important and a family history is useless.
I've heard them.

-"We don't speak with that side of the family"
-"My father lived with his uncle, because his father died (secretly running the empire as Darth Vader)"
-"I was adopted by Bail Organa, only to find out I have a lost twin brother"

There is one thing that will always be certain over time, there will be some screwed up family dynamics making it difficult (BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE) to obtain an accurate family history.

That being said, it is still often useful to capture those who you can. And still less expensive.

I look forward to the briefings from this conference, and Muin, if you are listening, I would love to have the link to the webcasts.... Oh wait, they have that too! Sweet.

If you can't be there, you can get the information you seek!

Once again, we need a state of the science on genome prediction, not a consensus statement a real eval of the state of the science. When placed side by side with the state of the science for a family history, we will soon see why family history is the preferred screening tool and will likely to continue that way, perhaps in conjunction with a genome scan, but genomes will NEVER replace family history.

The Sherpa Says: The press better be at this conference and report on Family History. And to the founders of Geni.com, you missed on this one when Tindall presented to you. Or maybe you just are going to steal the idea.........

The Doctors are OK with this?

Yesterday in "The Times" a nice article was posted about the revolutionary way in which doctors will receive education about CLINICAL genetics, this time it is from NonClinical Scientists......

At the tune of 4.5 Million British Pounds!

This may work with CGCs, oh wait, they don't do much of anything in the UK system.

What about clinical geneticists?
Who?

Ok, scientists it is......

So I can just see it now.

A busy NHS practice, patients out the door, flu shot here, flu shot there and in rolls the "Scientist"

Clinician-"Oh hi, you must be the genetics guy sent from the government. Have a seat, I'll be right with you"

4 hours later

Scientist-Sitting nicely, waiting

Clinician-"Ok, lets chat over lunch"

Scientist-"Glad to be here, Let's talk about what a chromosome is"

Clinician-Scarfing down a sandwich "Ok, that was great, gotta go. I am double booked. See you in a few"

4 hours later

Scientist-Sitting Nicely, waiting

Clinician-"Sorry about that, I had a sickie and then the crazy lady....G-d where did the time go?"

Scientist-"See you tomorrow?"

Clinician-"You bet, I feel better prepared already"

As nice as this one is, I have already tried it with a clinical geneticist who actually can create billable events and see patients........ I am not so certain that going to the doctors will help as much as being on their iPhone or on a hotline.......

The Sherpa Says: When climbing the mountain for the first time, it is best to chat with someone who has been there before.....Muin and Franics, I hope you are paying attention here.

Crazy Friday, Awesome Call, Tru Blocks the Sherpa

I was amazed the first time I met Francis Collins, longtime a hero of mine, Francis was gracious and kind when I met him. I also share a common bond with him. Francis' Intern at UNC was a guy by the name of Jim Sabetta, one of my instructors....


That being said, before I started HH, I watched webcast after webcast of the SACGHS. This was 2005 and 2006 I'm talking about. I did it because it was research. But I saw a guy on there who inspired me, who had such a sense of reason that the whole group respected. His name is Muin Khoury.....and I just met him Friday!

It turns out we also have people in common. But more importantly, we have a healthy respect for family history in common...... This guy and his team at the CDC have been researching Family History tools and the state of the science of family history pretty aggressively. This team is a heavyweight in the field and I am blown away by what they are doing.

Why?

It is the cheapest whole genome, phenome, metabolome scan we have today. The best part is that it covers multiple people with just one take!


They are actually researching the role effect of family history on behaviors and diseases! Something which NEEDS to be done, just like it does for SNP sandcans. Except of course, Family History costs nothing.....and has some good data already! Their FamilyHealthware methods have just been released! I will cover this further in depth in another post....

I am a little ad that I didn't get invited to GAPPnet, but am very excited to see what this conference in August on the state of the science in family history will bring.....More on this later


"Update" of TruGenetics.

While I WAS optimistic that a physician was at the helm of this company, I was reminded once again that we can be shady as well. It turns out, Dan Vorhaus AKA Genomicslawyer, read the fine print of the consent form. HT Daniel MacArthur too! It turns out Free is not so Free. Its now out that if you consent, you give the green light to TruGenetics sharing your results with companies and that your data goes into a database for "research" OK, that's strike one and strike 2......


The high heater came when I was following the COO of TruGenetics on Twitter......I challenged some of thet things he had said, like I do @Lindaavey @23andMx @Navi......But unlike those companies that stand up and defend themselves and agree to spirited debate with me.......@Achamedian the COO of TruGenetics "blocked" me!

Strike three TruGenetics.

You are out! I am deeply disappointed that you wouldn't debate me. It shows your TRU-Colors, to run and hide and also hide the fact that you are taking people's DNA for compensation of about 299 USD...... Not impressive. Nor is your call rate and error rate of 5%...... I guess you get what you pay for, when of course that product isn't hyped by large PR firms...


The Sherpa Says: Don't sign up for TruGenetics and if you do, at least you now know that they have a shady COO who runs from the questions and from the Sherpa!